GOP Politics when Less Government is More

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Nice Avatar. 1211. I like.

Kudos to slayer69 for the avatar!

Thanks!

Originally posted by beezzer
What about the freedom and rights of the developing human?

That's a question for each individual to answer. Not for one person (or political party) to answer for everyone.

Yes, KK, the GOP is big on claiming to want smaller government while imposing their morals on everyone through the law. Not just a woman's choice, but free speech, equal protection, religious freedom and personal choice.

Both political parties preach about freedom, as long as it's the freedoms they agree with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

People don't REALLY want a free society. They pay lip service to that, when all they want is control and power.

+++++ RELATED ++++++

Continuing on their unbridled scrutiny of all things unimportant, today a Congressional committee grilled the Postmaster General in apparent retribution for his recently renegotiated union contract which, by the way, saves money. The union apparently acquiesced to many concessions.

The House Oversight Committee looks at workforce costs at the U.S. Postal Service. USPS recently reached a tentative labor agreement with one of the largest postal worker unions. It would reportedly save $3.8 billion dollars over four years. Labor costs account for nearly 80% of the Postal Service’s costs.

SOURCE: C SPAN

During the meeting Republican "lawmakers" taunted and belittled the Postmaster General and head of Postal Worker Union. BTW, the USPS is self-sufficient and receives zero government funding as part of it's mandate. It is subsidized by postal rates.

In case you need proof

Wonder who will be next, elementary school crossing guards? :shk:

It should be blatantly obvious by now that one party wants to paint itself as fiscally responsible and a champion of God, morality and righteousness. In truth it is neither.

Was there any logical reason why the current budget proposal should mandate the de-funding of Planned Parenthood and make it almost impossible for a woman (especially a poor woman) to choose a perfectly legal medical procedure? (Rich women can always go to Europe for an abortion, as they did before Roe v. Wade). Was there any reason to insert a law that would require doctors who are consulted by women wanting abortions to read them a pre-written anti-abortion statement, refer them to a private anti-abortion clinic, show them an ultrasound of their baby, and make them wait three days in order to "think about the ramifications of the decision they are making?"

What earthly reason do they have for putting their personal agendas into a BUDGET bill? Oh yeah. The tiny amount of money that the government gives to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood not only refers women to abortion providers (they don't do them themselves), they also give mammograms, pap smears, thorough gynecological check-ups, and medical services for pregnant women, in addition to providing contraceptives and reproductive counseling.

When I was in college Planned Parenthood was my gynecologist, as I could not afford a private one. It was because of a mammogram that my breast cancer was detected early enough to prevent it from spreading to the rest of my body.

So all of these issues that are crucial to women's freedoms and rights are jammed into a bill that has nothing to do with it at all. The party in question is just seizing every opportunity it can to pander to the religious right and jam their personal agenda down the throats of the American people. The religious right is a significant part of their base and they need their votes to stay in power. I believe the Republicans are using cynical manipulation while at the same time are hedonists who do all the "immoral" things that they accuse the left of doing. The rash of Republican scandals attest to that.

As far as fiscal responsibility goes, they are only interested in cutting Medicare, Medicaid and all other social programs that benefit the middle class and especially the poor.

History has shown that the deficit has increased much more during Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Bill Clinton balanced the budget. And preserved Medicare at the same time. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush added trillions, through defense spending and billions in tax cuts to corporations and the richest 2% of the population. So much for the fiscal responsibility b.s.

No, the Republicans are only interested in three things: waging class war on the poor and middle classes, redistributing the wealth of the nation upward to the top 2%, and getting back into power.

They don't mind at all turning America into a third-world country, where a tiny fraction of the population are the richest people in the world and the rest of us are dirt-poor peasants, grateful for the pennies they fling at us from time to time. In fact, that is probably their idea of a perfect world.

Anything else they claim to be about is all smoke, mirrors, cynical manipulation and outright lies.

Originally posted by beezzer
What about the freedom and rights of the developing human?
Or are their rights secondary? Pity.

It would really help a lot of people to start reading OPs when responding to threads. I truly believe it might remind some of them to take their failed old argument talking points and put them back in their pocket.

What the reality of the GOP is
Everyone has rights....kind of
Do poor people have rights? No, they are lazy parasites.
Do gay people have rights? No, they choose to do things we find icky.
Do mothers have rights? No, they are pregnant.
Do legal immigrants have rights? Not the same as the rest of us, come on now!

When the GOP and its appologist starts whining about "rights" of this person or that person, they refuse to acknowledge that the rights they are so worried about are almost always at the expense of someone else, just someone they think less of. The GOP puts on a flag pin, says "rights" a few times and then goes back and writes legislation destroying more rights. Abortion is hardly even the issue. I find the example of being able to just DECLARE a financial crisis and remove democratically elected leaders far more frightening but hey, it is all in the name of rights for someone, right?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
+++++ RELATED ++++++

Continuing on their unbridled scrutiny of all things unimportant, today a Congressional committee grilled the Postmaster General in apparent retribution for his recently renegotiated union contract which, by the way, saves money. The union apparently acquiesced to many concessions.

I was watching some of this and I think the best part was when the one griller, I forget who went on about how he never sends his nieces and nephews letters anymore because he can email them just like he can order medication from his phone to whic the PG reminded him you cannot get your pills delivered by your phone.

Of course after a short pause, the expected response came back -"There is FEDex."
This is the GOP's idea of fiscal responsibility?
I just ordered some meds online myself and the choices were
3 day priority mail $2.60
FEDEX 1 day shipping $11.95

Hmmmm....I guess I can pay the extra money or just order my meds ontime. But I guess it is more important to shut down the post office because it is costing tax payers nothing but it just looks like big government and takes money away from overpriced private industry. Here is a little list of some tax breaks, incentives, and grants given to Federal Express. There is also a nice breakdown of some of the jobs they created and promised to create with all that free tax money.

Maybe someone can whip out there GOP calculator and break it down for me.

GOP fiscal responsibility and smaller government:
"Mr. Smith we need to raise your taxes so that we can give FEDEX a grant. This way, they will creat a hub here and create jobs. Then they can employ you and you can pay these extra taxes better. Some call that skimming but you will come to know it as the best you are going to get so like it!"

Originally posted by beezzer
What about the freedom and rights of the developing human?
Or are their rights secondary? Pity.

IT doesn't belong to you, it is not yours to decide...

It is funny, you want to use government to regulate a humans life, a family decisions
and a financial one all rolled into one
+ force your desired outcome
- the safety net that might have to provide for that resulting life.

completely contrary to your desire to limit government. What an amazing
and contrary combination to exhibit. Then you have the brass to preach
about the overreach of government, like I said in the other thread,
I can't believe that you are not ashamed of yourself. It is exhibits the
character of pudding really, demagogue endlessly, but promote your
specific concept of empowering government and AUGMENTING the thing you complain about
none the less.

Talk about Entitlement, look out now," hey everybody!!!", Beezzer's idea of big government is fine cause he approves...

Logically speaking.... empowering what you you are fighting against is extremely illogical

I am waiting for your deflection

reply to post by Janky Red


It is the exact same logic that leads people to cry about the nanny state and intrusion all while praising convicted wiretapper James Okeefe for "keeping an eye on things."